Madhuvidya

Author(s): S D Laddu, T N Dharmadhikari, Madhvi Kolhatkar, Pratibha Pingle
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 524

is the Vedic Rājasūya any Relevance for the Epic Game of Dice?
67
NOTES AND REFERENCES
* Paper read at the Seminar on the Rituals... under the auspices of the
Ananthacharya Indological Institute, Bombay, December 28-29, 1991.
1. All references to the Pune Critical Edition of the Mahabharata.
2. 2. 24. 18-2. 27. 28; 2. 28. 54; 2. 29. 1418; 2. 43. 25-35; 2. 45. 15-35; 2.
46. 23–25; 2. 47.1–31; 2. 48. 1.-41. According to Duryodhana only two families did not pay tribute the Pancalas because they were related to the Pandavas, and the Andhaka-Vrsnis because they were the friends of the
Pandavas (2. 48. 42). 3. The Mahabharata: 2. The Book of the Assembly Hall, translated and edited
by J.A.B. van Buitenen, The University of Chicago Press. Chicago and
London, 1975. 4. Buitenen asks: "... is a neighbouring kinsman's envy at Yudhisthira's good
fortune sufficient reason for the new king... willingly to gamble it all away?" We may ask : "Why not?* We have a parallel in Nala losing everything away
to his brother Puşkara in a game of dice. 5. van Buitenen's conclusion that every game of dice must go through twenty
turns is absolutely without basis. The anudyuta of the epic concluded only in one play, and there is no knowing how many plays Nala and Puşkara had in their dyūta.
6. van Buitenen makes certain statements (p. 30) about this incident which
are not of immediate relevance to the subject of this paper, but it has to be pointed out that there is no basis for them. He observes: "In the end Dhstarastra rules that the last play was indecisive and the game as a whole had been neither lost nor won". Where does he find evidence in the epic to make this observation? Similarly, following the general opinion, he states that the debate on the question raised by Draupadi remained inconclusive. The epic, however, tells us that when Duryodhana challenged any one of the Pandavas to answer Draupadi's question, Arjuna did that every neatly (2. 63. 21). Finally, there is nothing in the epic to show that the anudyūta was
only a repeat of the twentieth game" and not a new game altogether. 7. J.C. Heestermann: An ancient Indian Royal Consecration, 1957, pp. 114
116; 167-168; Mbh. 2. 33. 1.; 2. 49. 10 fg.; 2. 42. 35.
Madhu Vidyā/499